Due to a security breach on 2013-12-16, all passwords have been reset and members have had their new passwords emailed. However, some members haven't received a new password, and if you're one of them, you can request a new password here. If requesting a new password doesn't work, you can try sending an email here, just make sure you use the same email you've been using on this forum, and please have a look in your spambox if you're using Gmail.

If he really wanted to he could have just crushed Britain. Opened up the Eastern front in 1942 or something.

I don't think so as the wehrmacht could not march on water and British Naval power was supreme. Uboats did their little damage but the British Alan Turing cracked the Enigma machine with the invention of what perhaps might be called the first electronic computer (not integrated cricuit era though). Cracking the Enigma showed all formerly encrypted Nazi communication.

Hitler's operation Sea Lion would not work and he knew it so he never followed through.

Just look at how much trouble Japan gave America. If America did not have the atomic bomb then America would have had herrendous casualties trying to defeat Japan. Defeating an insulated Island nation is hard.

Originally Posted by ArchHades

The "battle of Britain" was nothing even close to being a total war. It was just a skirmish.

80% of Germany military casualties were from 1941-1945 against the Red army. All other fronts combined including 1944-1945 Western Front....and the earlier Western Front 1940 and the North African campaign all total to 20%.

Doesn't matter how many common soldier casualties there were as the war between Britain and Germany was not conventional. It was fought with planes, uboats, Navy ships, and V2 rockets not normal soldiers in battallions besides Dunkirk where Hitler let the British go because we are 'aryans' unlike Slavics. When the British fought the Germans in WWI it was much more conventional.

Now if you're asking me...could the Soviets have beaten the Germans with no Western allies. The answer is I don't know, I do think it's definitely possible though. They won three decisive battles from 1941-1943 (Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk) when 90% of the German Forces were still in the East. So that's pretty impressive.

Nope, sorry the so called 'Untermenschen' would have been annihilated by Blitzkrieg the full glory of Blitzkrieg would have been unleashed leading Hitler not to make the same mistake as Napoleon in Russia but that is not what happened and Hitler stupidly made the same mistake.

In the beginning of the war with Russia Germany was having great success with Blitzkrieg but the Western allies were bleeding them dry through things like British Naval stockades of goods shipping to Germany.

History is always written by the winner of the war. And it is usually distorted and biased. The greatest example of that are the Romans who always distorted the results of the battles in their favor, even if they lost. They had the historians who recorded the events. This practice goes all the way back to Egyptian times. Around 1500 BC or so they had a great battle with the Hittites. The Egyptians recorded the battle as a great victory for their pharoah. It wasn't until about 40 years ago that the Hittite language was decifered. Only then did the real outcome of the battle was revealed. The Hittites won and drove the Egyptians back to their country.
Here is an interesting video about an alternative view as to who started WWll. The Germans had a territory known as East Prussia. The Poles would not provide them with food or coal so the Germans had to ship these materials by rail. The Poles made one demand after another as to rail fees. They finally cut off access to East Prussia and that was the final event that led to the invasion of Poland. Their are other views as to the annexing of Austria and invading Chekoslovakia. The one on Poland is the most interesting , so you can skip forward to this. This is a completely different set of facts than the western view of these events.

I know all about East Prussia. Prussians were historically Germans military elite so the Poles, fearing Germany, were being rational.

Hitler did not confine his claims to East Prussia, parts of Czechoslovakia , and the annexation of Austria. He wanted to wipe out the Russians and turn it into a farming bread basket : a dumb blonde haired blue eyed kraut farmer peasants' paradise. Hitler hated Communism more than anything else but his Nazi socialist peasant ideology was very similar.

Nazism was a peasant movement populated by the worst in German peasant scum. Its “Aryan” philosophy and aspirations were a complete joke, and its blind devotion to nationalistic jingoism was the height of psychological blindness and wishful thinking. You can’t make genetic Aryans – a race of kings – out of a nation of genetic turnip-peasants.

I don't think so as the wehrmacht could not march on water and British Naval power was supreme. Uboats did their little damage but the British Alan Turing cracked the Enigma machine with the invention of what perhaps might be called the first electronic computer (not integrated cricuit era though). Cracking the Enigma showed all formerly encrypted Nazi communication.

Hitler's operation Sea Lion would not work and he knew it so he never followed through.

Just look at how much trouble Japan gave America. If America did not have the atomic bomb then America would have had herrendous casualties trying to defeat Japan. Defeating an insulated Island nation is hard.

By 1945 America would have easily taken the Japanese mainland. It would have cost a few hundred thousand American soldiers or they would have taken it. A few hundred thousand is chicken shit compared to the carnage of the Eastern Front. In Barbarossa alone from June 41 to January 42 Germany lost 1 million men. That's just the first 6 months.

Doesn't matter how many common soldier casualties there were as the war between Britain and Germany was not conventional. It was fought with planes, uboats, Navy ships, and V2 rockets not normal soldiers in battallions besides Dunkirk where Hitler let the British go because we are 'aryans' unlike Slavics. When the British fought the Germans in WWI it was much more conventional.

Right, Hitler let the British go, he feat racial kinship with them and not with the Red Army. That's why he let them go at Dunkirk. He could have annihilated them. No one is denying this was a dumb move by Hitler. You think if Germany had concentrated full power against the British and went to total war with them they could not have annihilated Britain? You are seriously delusional. Hitler was preparing for Barbarossa. The Battle of Britain was a tiny little skirmish between a few thousand planes where a few thousand civilians died. It was a joke. Saying Germany lost to Britain is like saying the US lost to the Viet Cong. It wasn't a total war. The Eastern Front in WWII was a TOTAL WAR.

Nope, sorry the so called 'Untermenschen' would have been annihilated by Blitzkrieg the full glory of Blitzkrieg would have been unleashed leading Hitler not to make the same mistake as Napoleon in Russia but that is not what happened and Hitler stupidly made the same mistake.

Yeah not buying it. at 10% increase in manpower isnt gonna effect the outcome that much I doubt. Germany had 90% of it's military in the East from 41-mid 43. Britain wasn't doing shit during this time. The major allied bombing raids on Germany only start about mid 43. And when the Western Front was reopened up in 1944 Britain wouldn't have done shit without Uncle Sam. Britain was little Brother to Uncle Sam.

Blitzkrieg was amazing but it wasnt amazing enough to totally overwhelm the Reds. The Wehrmacht fought better and more efficient than the Red Army but the Red Army by 42-43 had far higher numbers. Now, could have Wehrmacht won, it's possible. But they would have to have used slightly different tactics. Barbarossa would have had to have been launched at least 6 weeks earlier. Hitler should have pressed Moscow earlier, etc. The Red Army did 80% of the work defeating Nazi Germany. The US probably another 15% and the Britain and everyone else about 5%. Not to mention, the Red Army had to halt the wehrmacht it's peak from mid 41-43.

By 1945 America would have easily taken the Japanese mainland. It would have cost a few hundred thousand American soldiers or they would have taken it. A few hundred thousand is chicken shit compared to the carnage of the Eastern Front. In Barbarossa alone from June 41 to January 42 Germany lost 1 million men. That's just the first 6 months.

I don't really want to talk about this anymore because you are so very wrong on some points with some reasonable points thrown in it's like schizoid or something. If America could have taken the Japanese so easily they would have never have resorted to nuking them twice because that is extreme. You don't know what you are talking about. As for chickenshit you are confusing people of British stock with the French.

Originally Posted by ArchHades

Right, Hitler let the British go, he feat racial kinship with them and not with the Red Army. That's why he let them go at Dunkirk. He could have annihilated them. No one is denying this was a dumb move by Hitler. You think if Germany had concentrated full power against the British and went to total war with them they could not have annihilated Britain? You are seriously delusional. Hitler was preparing for Barbarossa. The Battle of Britain was a tiny little skirmish between a few thousand planes where a few thousand civilians died. It was a joke. Saying Germany lost to Britain is like saying the US lost to the Viet Cong. It wasn't a total war. The Eastern Front in WWII was a TOTAL WAR.

Comparing Britain to the Viet Cong ? Britain, a highly developed first world nation with a population not that small to Germany as compared to the vastness of America vs small Vietnam is ridiculous. Anyway, Churchill was courting America even before Hitler (in mentally retarded fashion) declared war on America. The RAF carpet bombing totally destroyed German cities. German cities like Dresden were reduced to rubble. The RAF carpet bombing help make the American job of invading Normandy and getting into Germany much easier. If German cities were not so destroyed by RAF bombing (reduced to utter rubble) then Germany wouldn't have needed to import all the Turks to help rebuild and maybe that was the start of the Muslim problem in Europe.

Originally Posted by ArchHades

Yeah not buying it. at 10% increase in manpower isnt gonna effect the outcome that much I doubt. Germany had 90% of it's military in the East from 41-mid 43. Britain wasn't doing shit during this time. The major allied bombing raids on Germany only start about mid 43. And when the Western Front was reopened up in 1944 Britain wouldn't have done shit without Uncle Sam. Britain was little Brother to Uncle Sam.

America, Australia, New Zealand and Canada are close culturally there is no way America would let a genocidal nutcase kraut like Hitler to try to force socialist fascism on the population. The British were fighting more importantly with their brains like Alan Turing decrypting uboat messages totally circumventing Karl Doenitz's wolfpack tactics . The uboats were trying to stop British naval stockades of goods to Germany. Britain always reigned supreme , in Europe, at Naval warfare especially after the defeat of Spain by Queen Elizabeth.

Originally Posted by ArchHades

Blitzkrieg was amazing but it wasnt amazing enough to totally overwhelm the Reds. The Wehrmacht fought better and more efficient than the Red Army but the Red Army by 42-43 had far higher numbers. Now, could have Wehrmacht won, it's possible. But they would have to have used slightly different tactics. Barbarossa would have had to have been launched at least 6 weeks earlier. Hitler should have pressed Moscow earlier, etc. The Red Army did 80% of the work defeating Nazi Germany. The US probably another 15% and the

Nazi Germany vs Soviet Union , in a theoretical vaccuum, Nazi Germany is the victor. It's not just the Blitzkrieg it was that Russia was relatively underdeveloped compared to Western Europe and the German weapons and tanks were vastly superior. Russian tanks and American tanks were shit but what the Russians and Americans did was mass produce shit to swamp quality tanks or overwhelm in sheer numbers thanks to Ford's assembly line idea.

Originally Posted by ArchHades

Britain and everyone else about 5%. Not to mention, the Red Army had to halt the wehrmacht it's peak from mid 41-43.

Like I said the wehrmacht could not march on water so was inneffective against Britain.

BTW, Arch Hades the American military core elite has always been Scottish more correctly in American terminology Scotch-Irish. General Patton was Scottish so he was of a British ethnicity. America's cultural folkways come from four oldschool British cultures. America is like a cheap knockoff of Britain and I mean this in a cultural sense. I can only imagine if the Nazis invaded Britain made it to Scotland how much the Scots would have kicked their ass because all that panzer tank bullshit doesn't work in the mountain and hilly regions there. Scots are tough cookies. Also, sense Scots are poor they make up much of the modern SAS. I would say the British SAS, NAVY SEALs and Isreali Mossad are the most elite fighting forces in the world. The French foreign Legion only has one unit that is special forces the rest are janitors with brooms.

BTW, Rudolph Hess, probably all speeded out on crystal meth, flew a plane to Scotland to try to arrange a peace agreement. The Scots locked him up.

Nazi Germany vs Soviet Union , in a theoretical vaccuum, Nazi Germany is the victor. It's not just the Blitzkrieg it was that Russia was relatively underdeveloped compared to Western Europe and the German weapons and tanks were vastly superior. Russian tanks and American tanks were shit but what the Russians and Americans did was mass produce shit to swamp quality tanks or overwhelm in sheer numbers thanks to Ford's assembly line idea.

The Soviet T-34 was shit? That's news to me.

Regarding Germany vs Soviet Union the answer is I don't know. That's something that I would say I just don't know. It's possible they could have fought with to a stalemate, it's possible Germany could have won the war, it's possible the Soviets could have won the war. I personally can't rule out all three. This British historian thinks the Soviets could have done it.

What makes you so much smarter and knowledgeable than this British military historian?

I don't really want to talk about this anymore because you are so very wrong on some points with some reasonable points thrown in it's like schizoid or something. If America could have taken the Japanese so easily they would have never have resorted to nuking them twice because that is extreme. You don't know what you are talking about. As for chickenshit you are confusing people of British stock with the French.

I did not say it would be so easy. I said a few hundred thousand casualties for the US probably. And millions for the Japanese. America had a 6 million man army at the time. When WWII ended while Germany and Russia were in ruins the US was just getting warmed up. yes a lot of mothers would have cried for their dead sons but it was inevitable that the US would have conquered mainland Japan. But a few hundred thousand pales in comparison to the 4 million + Germany lost on the Eastern front from 41-45.

The RAF made an epic comeback and bombed shit out of cities like Dresden.

If the Germans had won the war they would've put a bullet in Churchill's head for that one.

Originally Posted by DracoSentien

Just look at how much trouble Japan gave America. If America did not have the atomic bomb then America would have had herrendous casualties trying to defeat Japan. Defeating an insulated Island nation is hard.

If we didn't have the A-Bomb that war against the Japs would've ended in a stalemate. The Japs were a worthy opponent. But ya know we dropped an atomic weapon on an innocent civilian population and the rest was history. Talk about a holocaust but you never here the Japs bring up "muh 6 million" or even hear America apologize for it.

Originally Posted by Paul Essien

The Grimaldi African occupied Europe in ancient times.

The original Celtic priesthood were Blacks.

Black people constructed Stonehenge.

The Scots are themselves of Black origin.

The Irish are of black origin.

The Knights of King Arthur's round table were Blacks.

There was an African, Gormund who ruled Ireland at the time of the Anglo-Saxons.

The first King to unite Norway was Black. He was known as Halfdan the Black.

Regarding Germany vs Soviet Union the answer is I don't know. That's something that I would say I just don't know. It's possible they could have fought with to a stalemate, it's possible Germany could have won the war, it's possible the Soviets could have won the war. I personally can't rule out all three. This British historian thinks the Soviets could have done it.

What makes you so much smarter and knowledgeable than this British military historian?

I did not say it would be so easy. I said a few hundred thousand casualties for the US probably. And millions for the Japanese. America had a 6 million man army at the time. When WWII ended while Germany and Russia were in ruins the US was just getting warmed up. yes a lot of mothers would have cried for their dead sons but it was inevitable that the US would have conquered mainland Japan. But a few hundred thousand pales in comparison to the 4 million + Germany lost on the Eastern front from 41-45.

All tanks were a piece of shit compared to the German King Tiger tank in WWII. Also, all planes were a piece of shit compared to the German messerschmidt jet airplane but it never saw action. The Germans and Japanese are good at building stuff. The Russians are not known for their engineering.German engineering is famous and the quality of Japanese electronics is legendary.

You are wrong about the German jet plane never seeing action. It was called the ME 252. It did see quite a bit of action in the last few months of the war. There are You-tube videos on this. The American bomber pilots were astonished at the speed of the plane. It actually shot down some of the American's best fighter, the mustang p-51. The problem was that Hitler interfered with the production of the plane and there were never enough made to make a difference.

You are wrong about the German jet plane never seeing action. It was called the ME 252. It did see quite a bit of action in the last few months of the war. There are You-tube videos on this. The American bomber pilots were astonished at the speed of the plane. It actually shot down some of the American's best fighter, the mustang p-51. The problem was that Hitler interfered with the production of the plane and there were never enough made to make a difference.

Like I said Hitler was a tactical novice and a bum before WWI. He made some incredibly stupid decisions during WWII yet some people still see him as a crazy genius. One mistake that stands out is refusing to listen to his generals on the Eastern front which just underscores the inherent problems with fascism compared to Democracy. The damage the ME 252 did was so insignificant (despite the astonishment) that you might as well say they never saw action to a significant degree.